b) PLEKHANOV AND THE NEW ISKRA

PLEKHANOV AND THE NEW ISKRA

I.
Org[anizational] Lie

7. Tact[ical] Fog—
and Tactical Truth??

ness37).

II. Opportunistic] Wing of [the] P[arty]??

IV. How did Comrade Plekhanov Write History in the New Iskra?

1. What [is] to be D[one]. Fabrications. Comp[are to Karl] K[autsky]38).

2. — Fruits of Demagogy39).

3. Pr[ogram]. "Not Lenin." Document40).

4. Promise Given in Forward.
2 main polemical points in the pr[ogram].

5. L[etter] about "Proletariat" and "Martynovshchina."

6. It = Lie.

V. C o n c l u s i o n.
A Few Words Against Exaggeration of Disagreements.

1. Repetition from Steps on Aksel'rod]41).

2. Small Mistakes and Large People.

3. C[onfer]42) Bebel and 1895 "Bresl[auer] Deb[ates]43).

4. Beb[el] in Breslau and K[arl] K[autsky] contra his "tone."

5. Until Plekhanov] liberates himself from the legacy of the
New Iskra, he will confuse and Falsify.

512

d.

PLEKHANOV AND THE NEW ISKRA.

I. Instead of a Preface. A Small Supplement to the Analysis of Intellectual Over-men*).

II. The Question of the Participation of S[ocial] D[emocracy] in the Temporary Revolutionary Government.

III. How, When, and Why did Comrade Plekhanov Get Confused?

*) Vladimir Ilyich left three variants for the ending of the last two words. One can also read: "intellectual—over-man" and "intellectual over-man." — Ed.

Pl[an] of Z[emstvo] C[ampaign]

1.
2.
3.
"I am not a M[arxist]."
"Dial[ectic]s."
"Steps."
Org[anizational] Haziness].

4. Connection of org[anizational] Views with Tactic[al]. 
Correction
L 85.

Br[ochure] of T[rotsky] 
L[iberat]ion.

IV. How did Comrade Plekhanov Write History in the New Iskra?

1. W[hat is to be] D[one].

II. Pr[ogram].

V. Conclusion. A Few Words Against Exaggeration of Disagreements.

C[onfer] on Aksel'rod in St[eps]. Small Mistakes of Large People. Bebel and Agr[arian] Deb[ate in Bresl[au]43).

Party of Defectors, F r a c t i o n from them as well. "Became Wiser"*

Ad. I. Political] Amorality. Fashion. Tush[ino] Flights. Defectors. "Dear Soul." Boastfulness. Over-m[an] is Alone and Thinks this is because he is Above Everyone. Sometimes he Even Additionally Hypocritizes to Cover up Defections.

Ad. II.
(a) Unnecessary Obstacles to Clarifying the Question.

1. Ph[ilosoph]y. — 2. M[artyno]v and What [is to] be D[one].

3. Where Were Engels' L[etters] Pr[inted]? — 4. Len[in] Alone. Dial[ectic]s? ad. III.

(β) References to Marx (αα) and References to Engels ((3(3).

(γ) How is this Question Posed in Russia in 1905?

*) The word "posed" in the manuscript is written over "stands." — Ed.

1873,
1894

PLEKHANOV AND THE NEW ISKRA

M[aybe]
D[emocratic] D[ictat]ure
b[e]

1789— 1848— 50--------?

t[um]ble or
1873,1871,1894 etc.

not? C o n f u s i o n---------------------------------------------

with Social-
ist[ic]. Lenin
"invented"
d[ictat]ure—

In M[inority]? R e s o l u t i o n s of C o n g r e s s e s and Polemic
Evenly? In M[ajority]?
of Over-m[en].
("Balance of
F[orces]")

in resolution].

P[etty] B[ourgeois]ie Revolutionary and Reactionary] D[emocracy].

Connection of Q[uestion] with Uprising.
"Organ" of Uprising.

In M[ajority] and Socialist Transformation.
Rev[olutionary] Communes and Capture of Cities.

Principle (Betrayal, Blanquism etc.) or Expediency? ! № 74 and Zarya
21)

"The Leader is Lost."

Course and Outcome of R[ev]olution.

"Permissible" or not?

K[arl] K[autsky]: Useless "Dispute" 44). Compare his [piece] on the Dominance of the Prolet[ariat].

Ad. III. 1) And [Congress]. Moral
Resp[onsibility].

2) Ib[idem] § 1.

3) L[etter] 7 X 03.

4) W[hat] not [to] D[o].

5) Twist = Dial[ectic]s.

6) Contra: Steps.

7) Z[emstvo] Pl[an].

8) № 85.

"T w o C o n g r e s s e s
"Steps"
13 Needed
Forward № 14

Proletariat] № 2
Iskra № 74
75
97

*) On the "intellectual over-man" in Plekhanov's "Diary" № 2 (article "Warring Brothers," p. 41). All references to Plekhanov's "Diary" here refer to 2 articles printed in Vol. XIII of G. V. Plekhanov's Works, pp. 273—319.

2) See "Diary" № 2, p. 34.

3) So — thus!

4) Bretter — a professional duelist, brawler.

5) See "Social-Democratic Dear Soul," p. 372.

6) In the manuscript of Lenin's article "Playing at Parliamentarism," there is the following passage: "These over-men imagine themselves above both the 'majority' and the 'minority': in fact they are l o w e r than both, because to all the shortcomings of the majority they have managed to add all the shortcomings of the minority and all the s h o r t c o m i n g s  of  d e f e c t o r s. In the text of the article printed in "Proletariat" № 18, of September 26 (13), 1905, the cited words were omitted. These words should have followed immediately after the following words from the article: "our, standing outside both parts of the party, over-men, like Parvus and Plekhanov, magnificently ignore those very resolutions of the new-Iskra people, for which they are morally and politically responsible." (Works, vol. VIII, p. 227.)

7) See documents to the article "On the Temporary Revolutionary Government." (Pp. 300—306.)

8) Plekhanov in his article accused Lenin of "carelessness" with regard to philosophy in connection, among other things, with the fact that the Machist A. A. Bogdanov stood close to the editorial board of "Forward." Lenin apparently intended to parry this reproach with a reference to the fact that it was he (Lenin) already in mid-1903 who proposed to L. I. Akselrod (Orthodox) to come out in "Iskra" against the philosophical writings of Bogdanov. There is an indication of this in the article by L. I. Akselrod "A New Variety of Opportunism." ("Iskra" № 77, of November 18 (5), 1904.) This is precisely, it seems to us, the meaning of Lenin's note: "Contra Orthodox."

9) Plekhanov characterizes Lenin's polemical methods as a tendency toward "coarseness of expression," contrasting it with his own "sharpness of judgment." ("Diary," p. 10.)

10) Lenin has in mind the letter from Engels to Turati of 1894 that figured in the polemic between him and Plekhanov. (See note 16.)

11) This refers to Plekhanov's defense of Lenin's "What is to be Done?" against attacks by Martynov at the ninth session of the 2nd Congress. (Protocols of the 2nd Congress, pp. 113—114.)

12) These words refer to the following passage from Plekhanov's article (p. 48 of "Diary" № 2): "a man who combined in himself all organizational powers assures [us] that he freed the party from the yoke of 'foreigners'; but in reality it is precisely now that the 'party'—i.e., one of its parts—has fallen under the yoke of a foreigner, who, in his capacity as a foreigner, will be incomparably more durable than all his other comrades in the Central Committee."

13) Marx's words "I am not a Marxist" ("je ne suis pas marxist") are cited in Engels' letter to P. Lafargue of October 27, 1890.

14) In the article "Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry" (Works, vol. VII, p. 199) Lenin called Martynov a "virtuoso of Philistinism." Plekhanov attempts to present matters as if Lenin's argumentation also offends Marx. ("Diary," pp. 17—18).

15) Lenin pointed out in the article "On the Temporary Revolutionary Government" Plekhanov's substitution of Marx's position in 1848 on the question of a temporary government. "Marx does not raise the question of the participation of the workers' party in the temporary revolutionary government, but Plekhanov concludes that Marx resolves this question in general and on principle in an unconditionally negative spirit." (Works, vol. VII, p. 318.) Plekhanov continued to insist that Marx "did not even permit the thought of the possibility" of such participation. ("Diary" № 2, pp. 21—22.)

16) Vladimir Ilyich has in mind that point of his dispute with Plekhanov which concerned Engels' letter to Turati from 1894. Lenin insisted that this letter should be interpreted in connection with the given "situation." Plekhanov, on the other hand, believed that it contained a general principle not connected in any way with the "situation" at the moment of its writing. Plekhanov wrote: "This letter was written in 1894, i.e., under a 'situation' essentially different from the 'situation' of 1848; moreover, the thought of the inadmissibility of the proletariat's participation in a petty-bourgeois government is expressed there in the form of a general tactical principle, equally applicable to all those countries in which the working class has not yet matured for its own dictatorship. ... Immediately after Engels' death his letter to Turati was printed in 'Critica Sociale,' then it appeared as an appendix to a brochure 'Economica politica,' containing a translation of Engels' well-known article 'Umrisse zu einer Kritik der politischen Oekonomie,' then Kautsky cited it in 'Neue Zeit' during the polemic provoked by the 'crisis in socialism.' ("Diary" № 2, pp. 21, 23—24.) (See also note 7 on p. 306 and doc. "g" on p. 317.)

17) Plekhanov wrote: "It turned out with him (Lenin) that I in the polemic ... resorted to the most impermissible methods... One cannot go further than this: I turn out to be for him something like a literary swindler." ("Diary" № 2, p. 10.)

18) "Martynov tried to reduce to absurdity the views of revolutionary social-democrats, frightening them with the prospect that in the event of successful work on the organization of revolution, in the event of the leadership of an armed popular uprising by our party, we would have to participate in a temporary revolutionary government. But such participation is an inadmissible 'seizure of power,' is an impermissible 'vulgar Jaurèsism' for a class social-democratic party... 'Subjectively, Jaurès wanted to save the republic by entering into an alliance with bourgeois democracy. The objective conditions of this 'experiment' consisted in the fact that the republic in France was already a fact and no serious danger threatened it'... 'The objective conditions differ from the French ones like night and day'... 'Since Jaurès in France bowed before bourgeois social reform, incorrectly covering himself with the subjective goal of struggle for the republic, therefore we, Russian social-democrats, should renounce a serious struggle for the republic! After all, to this, precisely to this, the wisdom of the new-Iskra people reduces itself.'" (Works, vol. VII, pp. 196—199.)

19) On p. 28 of "Diary" № 2 Plekhanov writes: "Have we ever asserted that the creation of a revolutionary government is a deception of the workers and a betrayal of their cause?"

20) Lenin has in mind Martov's words: "to defile one's lips with the combination of words 'long live' and 'government.'" "Iskra" № 93, of March 30 (17), 1905. Article "On the Agenda."

21) Lenin points out that Plekhanov "became confused," raising the question of participation in government now as a question of "principle," now as a question of "expediency." Further on, Lenin illustrates this by comparing what Plekhanov says in № 2 of "Diary," where the question of participation in the rev. government is treated as "unthinkable" and "impermissible," with what Plekhanov wrote on the question of the participation of socialists in a bourgeois government in № 1 of "Zarya" and in №№ 74 and 75 of "Iskra."

22) In "Zarya" № 1, in the article "A Few Words about the Last International Socialist Congress," Plekhanov, having cited the text of the resolution forbidding "any participation of a socialist in a bourgeois government, toward which socialists must be in continuous opposition," adds: "I could not unconditionally approve this decision, since it completely forbids the participation of a socialist in a bourgeois ministry, and I thought and think—like Kautsky—that in certain exceptional cases such participation may be necessary to defend the vital interests of the working class. The whole matter is only in ensuring that a socialist who enters a bourgeois ministry, through his further conduct and speeches, contributes not to the obscuring of class consciousness among workers—as Millerand does—but to its deepening and development."

23) In the article "Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends" Plekhanov said: "I assert that... the participation of socialists, as a minority, in a bourgeois revolutionary government is not only ridiculous and pointless, but directly impermissible, because it gives the bourgeoisie the opportunity to politically exploit representatives of the proletariat." ("Diary" № 2, p. 27.)

In his feuilleton "In Amsterdam" he wrote: "Just as in literature all genres are good except the tedious one, so in politics all tactical methods are permissible except those that are inexpedient. But the participation of a socialist in a bourgeois ministry cannot once and for all be declared incompatible with our goal." ("Iskra" № 75, of October 18/5, 1904.)

24) In the article "Warring Brothers" Plekhanov says: "Among tactical disagreements the greatest place is occupied, of course, by the dictatorship invented by the editorial board of the newspaper 'Forward,' the striving for which threatens to turn Lenin's faction of the party into a society of conspirators à la Blanqui and Blanquists." ("Diary" № 2, p. 50.)

25) In the note "Prince Potemkin of Tauris," in the same 2nd issue of "Diary," Plekhanov wrote: "As soon as the 'Potemkin' came to Odessa, it was necessary to disembark, under cover of its guns, a significant part of its people on the shore and transport there as much cold and firearms as one could transport. The sailors would quickly have shown the workers how to use this weapon, would have given them some ideas about combat discipline and, dividing them into armed bands, would have stood in the center of these bands as their military leaders. Thanks to this, the struggle of the workers against the tsarist army would have been incomparably more successful, and the bloody Odessa days would have constituted an epoch in the history of our revolutionary movement." ("Diary" № 2, p. 52.)

26) These words seem to repeat similar markings on p. 352.

27) The period from the 2nd Congress of the party until Lenin's departure from the editorial board of "Iskra."

28) The party crisis before the declaration of the "22 Hard-liners" came out.

29) The period of struggle for the Third Congress.

30) 3rd Congress.

31) Now — at the present time.

32) Letter of Lenin and Plekhanov from October 6, 1903 to 4 former editors of "Iskra" and Trotsky. (See Works, vol. VI, p. 280.)

33) Plekhanov's words at the 2nd Congress of the League: "I do not doubt that Comrade Deich knows how to read, although he has never abused this ability. But that he knows how to read in hearts—I did not know this." (Protocols of the 2nd Regular Congress of the League, p. 102.)

34) Plekhanov's article "What Not to Do" — in № 52 of "Iskra."

35) Lenin has in mind Plekhanov's defense of the Iskra plan of the zemstvo campaign in the brochure "On Our Tactics." Lenin calls it conspiratorial because the title of Plekhanov's brochure reads: "For Party Members Only." (See present Collection, p. 61.)

36) In "Iskra" № 85, of February 9 (January 27), 1905, there are two articles which Lenin may have had in mind: 1) L. Martov's "Ninth of January," which spoke of the burning need for self-armament and the unleashing of revolution, and 2) Parvus' "Conclusions and Perspectives," in which he defends the slogan "organize the revolution."

Trotsky's brochure: "Before the Ninth of January" with a preface by Parvus

37) Speaking of the vagueness of the Mensheviks' organizational views, Plekhanov remarks: "The Mensheviks' organization has now reached the same decentralized state which is characteristic of hazy masses." ("Diary" № 2, p. 49, also p. 20.)

38) Here, as in the following points, Vladimir Ilyich has in mind Plekhanov's article "The Working Class and S.-D. Intellectuals," printed in №№ 70—71 of "Iskra," of July 25—August 1, 1904. In this article, directed specifically against "What is to be Done?," Plekhanov also set forth—and set forth incorrectly—the history of relations in the "Iskra" editorial board, touched on disputes about the program within the editorial board, etc. A refutation of Plekhanov's account is what Lenin outlines in this section. The first point was to concern the brochure "What is to be Done?," Plekhanov's disagreement with which he put forward as the reason for his break with Lenin, whereas the actual reason was disputes over the program, something now established by documents printed in "Lenin Collections" III and IV.

As to the substance of Plekhanov's critique of "What is to be Done?" (the question of "consciousness and spontaneity"), Lenin apparently intended to rely also on K. Kautsky, whose views on this question he cited both in "What is to be Done?" and earlier in the article "Our Immediate Task" (1899).

39) The title of an article by V. Vorovsky in № 11 of "Forward" of March 23 (10), 1905, which criticized Plekhanov's article.

40) Vladimir Ilyich intended to use this polemic to tell the actual history of the working out of the party program adopted at the 2nd Congress. This history and Plekhanov's role in it remained at that time completely unknown to wide circles of the party. Since the article on Plekhanov was never written, Vladimir Ilyich's intention to tell the history of the program also remained unfulfilled. It became known only in connection with the publication in "Lenin Collections" III and IV of the corresponding documents from Vladimir Ilyich's archive. In passing, Lenin touched on the question of the history of disputes over the program in a note to Vorovsky's article "Fruits of Demagogy," printed in № 11 of "Forward" of March 23 (10), 1905. This note contains the "promise" of which Lenin speaks in the text under point 4.

We cite this note in full: "By emphasizing that the program project was not written by me, Plekhanov is the first to bring out into the public domain, in the form of an insinuation, reproach, and reproof, our disputes over the program project. Unfortunately, he does not recount these disputes but limits himself to gossip, i.e., making a claim that is piquant but unclear and unverifiable. I must therefore add to my colleague's article against Plekhanov that I have documentary evidence of our disputes in discussing the program project, and I will publish this evidence when the occasion arises. Readers will then see: 1) that Plekhanov's claim is a complete lie, that the cooling of relations between us was due to 'What is to be Done?.' It was due to the division of the six-person group in half during disputes over the program: 2) that I defended and won the inclusion in the program of a thesis on the displacement of small-scale production by large-scale production. Plekhanov wanted to limit himself to a vague expression in the spirit of the famous "more or less"; 3) that I defended and won the replacement of the term "laboring and exploited masses" with the term "proletariat" in that place where the article discussed the class character of our party; 4) that Plekhanov, when I and my supporters in the six-person group reproached him for insufficiently expressed proletarian character of the party in his program project, defended himself with a counter-accusation that I 'understand the proletarian character of the party in the Martynovian way.'"

41) This refers to the lines devoted to Akselrod in the chapter "Opportunism in Organizational Questions" in the brochure "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back." (Works, vol. VI, pp. 300—319.)

42) Confer — compare, contrast.

43) This refers to the polemic between Bebel and Kautsky on the agrarian question at the congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Breslau, held October 6—12, 1895.

Bebel und Agrardebatle in Breslau — Bebel and Agrarian Debates in Breslau.

44) In the article "The Split in Russian Social-Democracy" Kautsky wrote:

"... to a foreign observer it would take no small amount of effort to discover even any difference between the two factions. The main question dividing them at the present moment consists in whether or not members of the party should take part in the future revolutionary government. But discussing the division of the skin of a bear not yet killed could of course be done in a most calm manner also within a single united party, while the dispute itself remains completely beside the point, as long as absolutely nothing is known about how the revolutionary government in which we are supposed to take part will look." ("Iskra" № 102, of June 28 (15), 1905.) Lenin in his brochure "Two Tactics" dwells at length on this citation from Kautsky's article (Works, vol. VIII, p. 101.)